Related rights: the Autorité de la concurrence imposes interim measures and orders Meta to negotiate in good faith with press agencies and publishers

The negotiations between Meta and press agencies and publishers

The French law of 24 July 2019 creating a related right for press agencies and publishers, which transposed into French law the EU directive of 17 April 2019, aimed to establish the conditions for balanced negotiations on value sharing between press agencies, publishers and digital platforms (hereinafter the “Law on Related Rights”).

Following the introduction of the Law on Related Rights, Meta held negotiations with both APIG (a French trade association representing the interests of the general-interest press) and DVP (French a collective management organisation dedicated to protecting the related rights of press agencies and publishers), leading to the conclusion of two agreements providing remuneration for the related rights of APIG and DVP members, signed in December 2021 and June 2024 respectively. The remuneration negotiated covered the use, by Meta, of content from press agencies and publishers on its services, from the entry into force of the Law on Related Rights until 31 December 2024, for DVP members, and 31 January 2025, for APIG members.

A new round of negotiations, starting in 2024, between Meta and APIG, on the one hand, and DVP, on the other, was unsuccessful, with no agreement reached on the amount of remuneration to be paid, the scope of uses covered by related rights or the Meta services concerned. Since the expiry of the initial agreements, APIG and DVP members have not therefore received any remuneration from Meta for their related rights.

The Autorité considers that Meta’s practices are likely to constitute an abuse of dominant position

At this stage of the investigation, the Autorité considers that Meta is likely to hold a dominant position in the market for personal social networking services (including hybrid platforms). This assessment is primarily based on the size of Facebook’s user base, which is significantly larger than that of any of its competitors, and the capacity of Meta’s platforms to meet a particularly wide range of user needs and uses.

In the view of the Autorité, the practices reported by the complainants are likely to constitute an abuse of dominant position on several grounds:

• Imposition of unfair trading conditions

Firstly, Meta may have imposed unfair trading conditions on press agencies and publishers by attempting to impose its own evaluation methodology, without taking into account alternative methods proposed by APIG and DVP. Furthermore, the Autorité highlights that Meta’s decision to exclude, as a matter of principle, all of Meta’s services distributing news content, with the exception of content posted by users on Facebook, from the scope of negotiations could undermine the provisions of the Law on Related Rights.

• Circumvention of the law

Secondly, Meta may have circumvented the Law on Related Rights, in particular by refusing to provide press agencies and publishers with the information necessary for an informed discussion, or by providing such information late and in an inadequate format, thereby frustrating the legislator’s objective of rebalancing negotiations. The information asymmetry between the parties is exacerbated by the failure to disclose to press agencies and publishers the revenue generated from the use of their content, as well as the actual ways in which that content is used.

The practices pose a serious and immediate threat to the press sector and justify interim measures

In the view of the Autorité, the failure to pay remuneration for related rights since the beginning of 2025 has caused financial harm to DVP and APIG members, despite their news content continuing to be distributed on Meta’s services. In this regard, Meta’s practices may exacerbate the precarious situation faced by a large number of press agencies and publishers, who are deprived of the resources essential for sustaining their operations and maintaining the quality of information.

Given the potentially anticompetitive nature of the reported practices and the serious and immediate harm to the press sector in particular, the Autorité considers it necessary for the injunctions to remain in effect pending its decision on the merits. This could be reconsidered, in particular in the event of a legislative change affecting the implementation of the Law on Related Rights.